IMPORTANT POINT
The reservation for women candidates being horizontal reservation cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Appointment – Reservation – Three posts were advertised out of which two were reserved and one unreserved – The advertisement stated 20% horizontal reservation for women – Thus out of three, one post was reserved for women – In view of availability of the respondent no. 4 in the reserved women category and selection and recommendation for the post, her appointment cannot be faulted with – The writ petitioner having been found fit and recommended becomes immaterial. (Paras 10, 14 and 17)
        (1995) 2 SCC 560 : JT 1995 (2) SC 438; (1998) 4 SCC 1 : JT 1998 (3) SC 223: 1998(4) Supreme 110; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : JT 1992 (6) SC 273 (Indra Sahney I) – Relied upon.
        (b) Service Law – Appointment – Horizontal Reservation – The reservation for women candidates cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota – Reservation will be of Horizontal nature i.e. if any Woman candidate selected on the basis of reservation on any category then she will be fixed of the said category. (Para 29)
        1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : JT 1992 (6) SC 273 (Indra Sahney I); (1995) 5 SCC 173 : JT 1995 (5) SC 505 – Relied upon.
        (2007) 8 SCC 621 : JT 2007 (10) SC 556 – Referred.
       Facts of the case:
        1. On August 10, 2000, Roorkee University issued an advertisement for filling up various vacancies in different faculties. The controversy in present appeals relates to the vacancy position in the Department of Mathematics.
        2. There were six posts of Professors (unreserved) and three posts of Associate/Assistant Professors. Out of three posts, two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates while one was unreserved. The posts were to be filled under Flexible Cadre Structure (FCS) in accordance with reserve roaster notified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
        3. Appellants in both the appeals applied in March, 2001. Interviews were conducted on March 20, 2001. Selection Committee met on the next day, i.e. March 21, 2001.
        4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was selected for the post of Associate Professor. According to him, respondent No. 4 (Dr. Madhu Jain) was not found eligible and was neither selected nor recommended. The writ petitioner, however, did not receive an appointment letter for quite some time. On the contrary, he came to know that respondent No. 4 was intimated by the University that she was selected and being appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics.
        5. The Division Bench of the High Court by the order impugned in the present appeals, allowed his petition, set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 but directed the University to re-advertise the post and to conduct the selection process afresh.
       Findings of the Court :
        The reservation for women candidates being horizontal reservation cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota.
       Result : Appeal by writ petitioner dismissed and that by respondent no.4 allowed.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals have been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttrakahand) on September 18, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 802 (S/B) of 2001.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on August 10, 2000, Roorkee University issued an advertisement for filling up various vacancies in different faculties. The controversy in present appeals relates to the vacancy position in the Department of Mathematics. As observed in the impugned judgment of the High Court, there were six posts of Professors (unreserved) and three posts of Associate/Assistant Professors. Out of three posts, two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates while one was for General Category: Unreserved (UR). They were to be filled under Flexible Cadre Structure (FCS) in accordance with reserve roaster notified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under whose control the University was functioning at the relevant time. Appellants in both the appeals applied in March, 2001. Interviews were conducted on March 20, 2001. Selection Committee met on the next day, i.e. March 21, 2001. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was selected for the post of Associate Professor. According to him, respondent No. 4 (Dr. Madhu Jain) was not found eligible and was neither selected nor recommended. The writ petitioner, however, did not receive an appointment letter for quite some time. On the contrary, he came to know that respondent No. 4 was intimated by the University that she was selected and being appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics. The writ petitioner made representations. Since there was no favourable reply, he was constrained to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court by the order impugned in the present appeals, allowed his petition, set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 but directed the University to re-advertise the post and to conduct the selection process afresh. Consequence of the order passed by the High Court was that the writ petitioner succeeded and selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Professor in Mathematics had been set aside, but no effective relief had been granted in favour of writ petitioner. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the present appeal is that though he was eligible, qualified, found fit and recommended for appointment to the post of Associate Professor, he was not appointed. The High Court, no doubt, allowed his writ petition but it was wrong in directing re-advertisement of the post and to conduct selection process afresh. The complaint of respondent No. 4-appellant in the cognate appeal, on the other hand, is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, she was rightly selected, recommended and appointed as Assistant Professor in Mathematics and the High Court was not justified in setting aside her appointment. The action of the University in appointing her was legal and valid and ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court.

4. On January 6, 2004, notice was issued by this Court in Special Leave Petition instituted by the writ petitioner. The parties were directed to exchange affidavits. Meanwhile, respondent No. 4 also instituted Special Leave Petition on January 29, 2004. In that matter also notice was issued. Both the matters were then ordered to be placed for final hearing on a non-miscellaneous day and that is how the matters have been placed before us.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner was working as Assistant Professor. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the University for filling up posts of Associate/Assistant Professor (Combined Cadre), the writ petitioner applied and got himself selected and was recommended for appointment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 706

IMPORTANT POINT The reservation for women candidates being horizontal reservation cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The reservation for women candidates being horizontal reservation cannot be held invalid or in excess of permissible quota.